• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments

Drop that milk pail, Kid

This is a worse nanny state intrusion than the "Here, Kid, eat this and go tell your mother she doesn't care enough about you to give you healthy food" lunchroom incident:

A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress. But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves.

The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.

Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”

But let me rethink this a bit. We didn't live on a farm, but my parents saddled me with lots of chores when I was growing up. It was like I had some obligation or something just because chance had me born into that family! They didn't ask me if I liked the chores, and they certainly didn't take into account things like how long a child should be bored with repetitive tasks or how early or late in the day he should be allowed to rest.

That was awfully disrespectful of my rights, don't you think? Wonder if I can bring a posthumous suit against them. This day and age, don't say no so fast.

Comments

Tim Zank
Wed, 04/25/2012 - 9:35am

More of the natural progression of the progressive agenda, everyone must be protected from everything (read:controlled).

 

littlejohn
Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:19am

Gentlemen, if you read the article rather than letting your imaginations run wild, the children would not be prohibited from milking the family cow, as Leo's headline clearly implies. It applies to grain silos, stockyards, auctions and so forth.

I'll grant you that is still seems like overreach, but there is no reason to resort to hysterical hyperbole about "chores."

Harl Delos
Wed, 04/25/2012 - 11:27am

When I was too young to drive tractor (in Mom's opinion), I resented it; my friends were doing more and I felt infantalized.  I remember sitting at the end of the field, waiting to carry 50-pound bags of 20-20-20 to the corn planter. Dad carried the 80-pound bags of seed corn.  Totin' wasn't the problem but boredom was, and Dad wouldn't hear of letting me read a library book between planter fills.  And when I'd be plowing from getting home from school until 10 PM, I really resented missing my TV programs.

But I wanted to start at a younger age. I also bitterly resented 20 minutes a night carrying wood, between the bitter co;d and the splinters.  But it would have better prepared me for adult life if there'd been chores. I feel sorry for townie kids, who get even less of what I had.

john b. kalb
Wed, 04/25/2012 - 12:22pm

Small place .....  The milk pails that I loaded onto the pick-up truck before going to the cheese factory in my 15th & 16th years of age were "work of transporting of farm product raw materials" !   And it did not harm me in any way!  So get off Leo's case!

Christopher Swing
Wed, 04/25/2012 - 5:10pm

Ah, from the Daily Caller, AKA The Tucker-Carlson-founded-right-wing-trollbait factory.

I suppose you'd have to ignore the way the DC splits it up in order to create the illusion of two separate things;

"The department also is proposing to create a new nonagricultural hazardous occupations order that would prevent children under 18 from being employed in the storing, marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials. Prohibited places of employment would include country grain elevators, grain bins, silos, feed lots, stockyards, livestock exchanges and livestock auctions."

From the actual release.

But splitting them up certainly fooled people like Kalb there, who was too busy being elated at another excuse to call littlejohn (what Kalb thinks is) a clever name to actually think about what's going on.

Christopher Swing
Wed, 04/25/2012 - 5:58pm

I should add as well, that from the second paragraph of the release:

"The proposed regulations would not apply to children working on farms owned by their parents."

Which pretty much destroys the narrative the DC is trying to create.

I don't expect much from the Daily Caller here, whether they're being lazy in reporting or just outright lying by omission is only a question for the extremely naive.

And the reliablly reactionary commenters here... well, I expect pretty much nothing from them in the way of critical analysis.

But Christ Leo, don't you have a journalism degree? What are you doing just blindly thrusting this crap forth without even a semblance of checking? Is it outrageous that I should expect a little better of you?

Or do you have the same agenda as the Daily Caller? Are you no better?

 

RAG
Wed, 04/25/2012 - 7:12pm

Even if the DC release omitted the information that these regulations wouldn't apply to children working on farms owned by their parents, it still raises a question.  What business is this of the federal government?

I guess even Amish kids will be stuck on the sidelines when a neighbor needs help.

Christopher Swing
Wed, 04/25/2012 - 8:25pm

But the DC narrative (and hence Leo's point) is still false.

Also:

Fact # 4: Under the proposed rule, children will still be able to help neighbors in need of help.

In order for the child labor provisions of the FLSA to apply, there must first be an employer/employee relationship. The lone act of helping a neighbor round up loose cattle who have broken out of their fencing, for example, generally would not establish an employer/employee relationship.

http://www.dol.gov/whd/CL/truthNPRM.htm

Because, you know, never mind accuracy or truth getting in the way of some conservative outrage.

 

Christopher Swing
Wed, 04/25/2012 - 8:35pm

And let me clarify, the Daily Caller didn't out out a release, RAG, the Department of Labor did, and the Daily Caller ran a slanted, incomplete story on that release. Certain elements (inluding Leo) spread that misinformation. That's why the Department of Labor had to release that link I just posted.

As for what business is it of the Department of Labors... they're making adjustments to child labor rules that were already in place. That's the DoL's JOB. None of this is really new, as DC and Leo would have you believe.

Harl Delos
Thu, 04/26/2012 - 4:32am

It's pretty common, Chris, for farmers to exchange labor.  It's too wet on my bottomland to be cutting wheat, but yours is ready, so I take my combine over to your fioeld, and so we can cut from late morning until about midnight when the dew makes the wheat too tough to cut, Junior comes along with me, jockeying around the hopper wagons so we can unload the combines while we continue to harvest.  When the wagon is full, he runs it up to the barnyard and augers it into the granary.  When my crop is ready, he comes over and helps me get it in before the winds shell out the wheat onto the ground.

That's not the same thing as catching loose livestock.  Nobody keeps track of such favors.  Labor swaps, on the other hand, are already considered an employer/employee relationship for purposes of workman comp.

And it's not just grain farming that calls for exchanged labor.  You need extra manpower to safely run sheep through sheep dip, to bob tails, to geld calves, to ring hogs. 

Farming is a hurry-up-and-wait enterprise, and it's one of the most dangerous occupations because farmers try to work without enough manpower to do the job in a safe manner.  It's not doing a kid any favors if you put his dad in the hospital - or in the ground - because some bureaucrat who doesn't doing ends up writing some rules that sound good but are really stupid.

Christopher Swing
Thu, 04/26/2012 - 11:56am

So Harl, you make a specious argument that what the DoL plainly says isn't the case somehow still is...

How does that make what Leo and the Daily Caller said about children of farmers not being able to do chore period on their own farms not a lie?

Harl Delos
Thu, 04/26/2012 - 1:31pm

My answer isn't specious; their's is.  THE DOL ISN'T ADDRESSING THE ISSUE OF LABOR SWAPS which are part and parcel of family farms and WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE SAFE OPERATION of family farms.

There are two forseeable consequences.  One is that family farmers go out of the farming business and sell a farm which may have been in the family for 150 years or more.

The other consequence would be that the family farm, which may have been in the family for 150 years, may be auctioned off to provide support for the orphans that are created.

Damn it, Chris, I was in college before I was 17. My mother was married when she was 16, and both of my grandmothers married at the age of 14.  I went to school with guys who joined the military at 17.  But you think it's unsafe for someone - who's been jockeying a tractor through mudholes since the age of 10 - to drive a truck of grain to the elevator for his neighbor when he's 17?

What the hell, let's make it impossible for someone to work until he's 35.  Then, maybe we can trust him with a push lawnmower.

 

 

So Harl, you make a specious argument that what the DoL plainly says isn't the case somehow still is...

Tim Zank
Thu, 04/26/2012 - 1:39pm

Interesting back and forth in the comments proving once again how passionate the Marxists are about the state controlling every single activity by individuals. This isn't about protecting anybody, it's about the state controlling people and the state hiring thousands more people to be enforcers and monitor people and their activities, which is what disciples of this administration (like the paid arguers that show up here now) most relish: state control. 

Christopher Swing
Thu, 04/26/2012 - 2:14pm

No Harl, it's you against the DoL specifically saying what you're saying isn't true. Evidence they're lying or STFU on that tangent.

You're still ignoring the point: How, even if you were right, would that make what the Daily Caller reported (and Leo repeated) not a lie?

Why can't you answer that question?

And then we have have Tim Zank, reliable as a trained seal, jumping up and clapping again. Just like he was first to do so when Leo initially posted this misinformation.  It doesn't matter if there's any truth to what he's spouting, because for him it's all about confirming his bias.

Oh, and his batshit insane claim that people who disagree with him here are being paid by some shadowy conspiracy. But then again, Zank reads Above Top Secret, which makes the Daily Caller look legitimate by comparison.

Tim Zank
Thu, 04/26/2012 - 7:24pm

Only someone who is paid would spend so much time, effort and energy dissecting and deconstructing a relatively benign and straightforward (and cheeky to boot!) commentary.   

Christopher Swing
Thu, 04/26/2012 - 9:20pm

Not someone who actually cares at all about journalists actually telling the truth or anything. And if simply bothering to consider the source and spending 5 seconds checking the facts counts as a great deal of effort to you, Zank... Well, that would make sense. Thinking about things probably is an effort for you. As I said before, I don't expect much from you in the first place.

So wait, who's paying me?

For that matter, who's paying you and Delos to reply, Zank?

Or are you dumb enough to be doing this for free when you think I'm being paid? XD

Tim Zank
Thu, 04/26/2012 - 9:57pm

You're either paid or you're a masochist. There's no other reason I can think of to keep coming back where it's painfully obvious no one likes you, respects your opinion, or seriously considers your views valid. First couple of days was a hoot though! Thanks for playing.

Tim Zank
Thu, 04/26/2012 - 10:08pm
Christopher Swing
Thu, 04/26/2012 - 10:24pm

Oh noes! Some random people on a blog comment section don't like me? Especially one idiot in particular?

Man, that's terrible.

So you only post comments in places where you think people like you and will agree with anything you say? Yeah, I can believe that coming from you, Zank.

And hey! It looks like the idiocracy succeeded!

"The decision to withdraw this rule – including provisions to define the 'parental exemption' – was made in response to thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farms."

Lie to enough dumb people, get them scared and you can make things happen!

I bet Leo's super-proud of himself for taking part in that.

Christopher Swing
Thu, 04/26/2012 - 10:33pm

Of course, come to think of it:

"More of the natural progression of the progressive agenda, everyone must be protected from everything (read:controlled)."

Must be a really laid-back agenda if they gave up on it this easy.

Doesn't the fact that they responded to concerns, even misinformed concerns, kind of blow a hole in that particular conspiracy theory of yours, Zank?

john b. kalb
Thu, 04/26/2012 - 10:48pm

It's too bad that "the one" woke up belatedly and smelled the manure to correct his latest attempt to "take control"  - the fact that he "caved" so late  sure looks like he is dead in the weater for any thought of re-election this year.    Many are relieved in the weorld but especially in the US of A!

And Mr. Swingman - you and your misguided crew can shut up for a long while!   All things are NOT going your way,  thank God!

Harl Delos
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 2:11am

Which one of us in particular do you think dislikes you, Swing?  I'd have a hard time trying to identify anyone here, regardless of political bent, who doesn't dislike you.

There's a pretty diverse group of opinions among the regulars, but most of us have no particular personal animus towards each other.  We tease each other, and with Littlejohn, sometimes it gets old, but I could imagine virtually everyone getting together for brats and beer over the grill, and a Tom Clancey movie in the living room when the skeeters get bad.

But while we have engaging discussions of issues, Chris, you get dishonest and nasty.  For instance, Leo presented a Daily Caller piece and his take on it.  The DC was wrong in the details, which doesn't surprise me, and surely doesn't surprise Leo; they aren't particularly diligent about getting the facts right at DC.  However, while everybody else continued to discuss the proposed rule and how it would affect farm families, you insist on making this a pissing contest, pointing out that Leo was wrong and you were right.

The problem with pissing contests is that you end up smelling of piss.  I haven't heard Leo claiming never to make a mistake; in fact, the way this blog works is that Leo presents a quick take on various current events, and invites us to agree or disagree.  He knows that if there is no difference of opinions, it's boring as hell, so he doesn't avoid controversial subjects, knowing he'll be told he is wrong.  Big deal. 

OK, you proved your point.  Now how about heading for the showers and washing that smell off?  And when you come back - IF you come back - how about playing by the rules?  It's not a contest between people here.  It's a contest of ideas.  And if you don't like that concept, well, there are lots of places on the internet where your urine is welcome.  If you're half as appealing to others as you think you are, you could download a copy of this software at Drupal.Org and sell hundreds of dollars of advertising monthly while spending $5 or $10 for hosting.

 

Christopher Swing
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 12:56pm

"I'd have a hard time trying to identify anyone here, regardless of political bent, who doesn't dislike you."

Am I supposed to feel bad?

"But while we have engaging discussions of issues, Chris, you get dishonest and nasty."

Bullshit. Cite something I've said that's not true. You have the gall to call me dishonest when you're posting comments on a blog itself that's a lie?

The fact that Leo's allegedly a journalist and doesn't bother to get the facts straight is the goddamn point, you fool. It has nothing to do with me being "right." And you people aren't discussing what the new rule would have actually done, you were talking about what you were afraid the lie about the rule would do.

"And when you come back - IF you come back - how about playing by the rules?"

Oh, and you think you're in a position to tell me what the rules are? How about you get bent?

" It's a contest of ideas."

So we're just supposed to ignore the lies?

"And if you don't like that concept, well, there are lots of places on the internet where your urine is welcome."

Aw, do you want me to go away? Guess what Harl, I don't care. You're just upset that your echo chamber is getting screwed up, and that there's someone here who won't put up with your condescension and abuse.

Deal with it. ;D

Tim Zank
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 2:10pm

Heh, heh, heh......Just like arguing with a teenager, the similarities are frickin' hilarious...they (liberals and kids) always go back and argue line by line to try and wear you down. 

 

Christopher Swing
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 3:04pm

Oh Zank, you're so clever.

You forgot some things, though:

Of course, come to think of it:

"More of the natural progression of the progressive agenda, everyone must be protected from everything (read:controlled)."

Must be a really laid-back agenda if they gave up on it this easy.

Doesn't the fact that they responded to concerns, even misinformed concerns, kind of blow a hole in that particular conspiracy theory of yours, Zank?

Trying to avoid a question, are you?

Christopher Swing
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 4:46pm

(Also, in before Zank finds out what "Fisking" is [calm yourself, Zank - your wife isn't getting the lube out and demanding you bend over again] and that the term, if not the practice, originates from conservatives - not "teenagers and liberals.")

Tim Zank
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 6:01pm

As is evidenced above: progressive thought process=teenagers thought process.

 

Christopher Swing
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 6:05pm

Still no answer to the question, Zank?

I can understand that you'd fixate on teenagers and liberals though, it must be rough how they get the better of you so often.

But really, you should quit stalling and answer the question, it's relevant to the post.

Tim Zank
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 6:15pm

What specifically is your question?

Christopher Swing
Fri, 04/27/2012 - 6:24pm

What, you're really feigning ignorance at this point? Or just too busy trying to come up with insults to actually read?

Here, you're too lazy to scroll back up, so I'll copypasta for you... again...

Of course, come to think of it:

"More of the natural progression of the progressive agenda, everyone must be protected from everything (read:controlled)."

Must be a really laid-back agenda if they gave up on it this easy.

Doesn't the fact that they responded to concerns, even misinformed concerns, kind of blow a hole in that particular conspiracy theory of yours, Zank?

Trying to avoid a question, are you?

Sunk in yet? Or you just don't want to admit that reality has made your initial statement in the thread look really stupid?

Quantcast